So this sub has been dead for a while so I figured I would try to breath a little life into it with the little experience I have in subjective idealism. That out of the way, I have been thinking recently about the the relation between the mind and the brain.
The Mind is you, or a better way of putting it, a being that perceives. If we were to define perception under a subjective Idealist lens then this includes thought, experience, and conscience in addition to the general understanding of it being the 5 senses (or more, however that is a whole nother post). Defining what the brain is is a little trickier however. Under subjective idealism the brain is really just a perception of our ability to perceive, same with the body. We apply “physical” mediums such as the brain or the eyes or our hands so that the mind can interact with the physical. if we can perceive the world but not interact with it then what is the use given the normal view of perception. With this in mind I want to dive a little deeper into what this means to the brain specifically.
First being a phrase coined by George Berkeley saying “esse est percipi” which is Latin for “to be is to be perceived”. This doesn’t just mean that our perceptions out dependent on us, it means that our ability to perceive is also dependent on us perceiving a way for us to perceive. I can see a field of flowers, however the “physical” substantiation of that is through the eyes, and from the eyes to the brain which is the physical substantiation of the mind. This isn’t to say this is the only way or even the “right” to perceive how we perceive, however it is a way. It reminds me of the phrase “I think therefore I am” from Descartes, however “esse est percipi” is a much more powerful way to look at it. It helps me see that my existence is dependent on the self. It reveals a greater sense of control over the self than just the fact that “sense I think (which is just one way one can perceive) then I know that I exist”. With subjective idealism, this changes into “I exist because I perceive myself.”
This then leads me into my final thoughts on this. If I currently perceive the physical substantiation of my mind to be the brain, then isn’t that limiting? In essence I am forcing a limitation on myself bc the brain is inherently a limiting factor to what we can think about, and how we perceive. Separating the the mind from the brain could mean a world of things. Such as having one mind but multiple bodies, all perceiving independently of each other but feeding into the same mind. Or we could look at it another way, Why am I limiting perception though the medium of the “physical”. There are many other ways to perceive that I can’t even describe because I haven’t experienced them, and bc they are impossible to describe thought this “physical” medium.
Anyways I hope some of this made sense, Subjective idealism is one of the harder things to dive into or even describe. Hope to here some of yalls thoughts on this and maybe get this sub a little more active again.
“The mind” is a tricky concept you have to be careful with. If ‘the mind’ is a being, a specific discernable thing, then where is it? What are its attributes? ‘The mind’ cannot have any specific attributes because all attributes are present within the mind, so to speak. So mind, or consciousness, is not any specific experience. Instead it is the ever-present capacity to experience. What is this and what does it mean? In order for you to discern ‘blue’, you unconsciously are also saying that the experience you are discerning as blue isn’t ‘not blue’ and therefore isn’t ‘red’ ‘yellow’ ‘salty’ ‘floral’ etc. Any discerned experience implies that it is what it is and isn’t anything that it isn’t. Another way to say this is that in every experience, the entire potential of experience is unconsciously implicit alongside the actual experience. That ever-present potential is ‘the mind’. The potential is the ‘space’ within which experience occurs, but this space (the potential) has no other properties to it that you can discern. ‘The mind’, or consciousness, then, is just the capacity for experience. The potential for experience.
Not at all. The brain isn’t a perception of our ability to perceive. You can’t perceive an ability. It’s not something you experience. The brain is just an illusory appearance, like a reflection of a bird in water. It looks like it is there, and even appears to interact with other appearances in certain ways, but is fundamentally an illusion, like a dream.
I would say it this way: There is no physical to interact with in the first place. There is only the illusion of physicality like in a dream.
Do we perceive ourselves? How would that be possible? What is the perceiver? If something is perceived then it is the perceived, not the perceiver, yeah? I would say instead there is an endless field of perception, or as I prefer an endless field of experience. I support the idea that the idea of the self (as agent of action, or subject of experience, which seem to be the most important aspect of the ‘self’ as a concept) are confused illusions within mind/consciousness.
Originally commented by u/AesirAnatman on 2023-01-09 02:15:40 (j3h3yvr)
Hmmm I really like that definition of the mind being "the capacity or potential to experience. Much simpler to view it that way instead of defining it material language.
I also like defining the brain as an illusion. This is much more in line with subjective idealism and I can’t help but be drawn to Plato’s allegory of the cave.
Lots of good things to think on. Thanks for the reply :)
Originally commented by u/bitzzle on 2023-03-20 09:30:35 (jcvp03z)